ISLAMABAD: Underscoring the importance of holding elections within 90 days, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the rights of millions of people in the country were directly connected to the fundamental right to vote.
This statement by Justice Munib Akhtar came during a hearing conducted by a three-judge bench in response to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) petition to reconsider a previous judgement directing the government of Shehbaz Sharif to hold the Punjab Assembly elections on May 14.
Headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the bench comprised justices Ijaz ul-Ahsan and Akhtar, who had previously issued the order for holding elections in Punjab.
During the hearing, Sajeel Swati, the counsel for ECP, informed the court that the federal and Punjab governments had submitted their responses in the case, which were recently obtained by the electoral watchdog.
However, Justice Bandial pointed out the response from the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) had not yet been received. Swati confirmed that the ECP had not received responses from the opposition or any other political party.
Requesting time to review all the responses, Swati appealed to the court to adjourn the proceedings. However, Justice Bandial asked him to present his arguments in the case.
The judge assured Swati that if there were any new points to be raised, they could be addressed in the next hearing. He inquired about the potential grounds for the review petition.
Following this, Swati began presenting his arguments, asserting that the jurisdiction of the tribunal’s review petition was not limited to constitutional cases. He argued that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction could be expanded but not restricted.
He further argued that the apex court’s jurisdiction in review cases was restricted to civil and criminal matters.
In response, Justice Ahsan highlighted that seeking courts’ intervention for fundamental rights was considered a civil case. However, Swati countered this by observing that proceedings under Article 184(3) were not civil in nature.
Justice Ahsan pointed out that Article 184(3) had two sections: one related to the public interest and the other to fundamental rights.
Justice Akhtar posed a question, asking if a case related to elections was brought before the Supreme Court from a high court, would it not be considered a civil case. Swati responded by saying that the constitutional authority of a high court was greater than that of the apex court.
Justice Akhtar further pointed out the discrepancy in Swati’s argument, saying that according to him, if there was an appeal from a high court, the jurisdiction was limited. However, in the case of a review petition, Swati claimed the scope was not limited.
The judge questioned if this did not amount to discrimination in the case of fundamental rights. Additionally, the judge raised concerns about the ambiguity created in the court’s jurisdiction.
Swati asserted that Article 184(3) of the Constitution did not grant the right to appeal, emphasizing that the scope of the review petition could not be limited as a result. He said that in reviews, the court had to consider the requirements of justice, and new points could only be raised in constitutional cases.
Justice Akhtar questioned whether the lawyer was arguing that a review under Article 184(3) should be treated as an appeal. Swati affirmed this and added that the jurisdiction of the review was not limited in cases under Article 184(3).
Justice Ahsan expressed concern that accepting the ECP lawyer’s argument would lead to immediate hearings in review cases. He said that the Constitution did not equate the scope of the right to appeal with that of review.
Justice Munib observed that granting the ECP’s request would complicate matters further.
Swati argued that the Constitution did not restrict the scope either and suggested that Article 187 of the Constitution could be used for absolute justice in reviews.
Intervening in the discussion, Justice Bandial cautioned against treating a review as an appeal, emphasizing that Article 184(3) did not provide the right to appeal. He emphasized the need for clarity regarding the scope of the Constitution.
The ECP lawyer then requested the court to issue a detailed order, which he believed would facilitate the proceedings.
Justice Bandial recalled that both the government and the electoral body were serious about the proceedings. He referred to previous objections raised by the government regarding the bench, such as questioning a full court or the issue of 3-4 judgments.
The CJP asked Swati why these arguments were not raised earlier and inquired if any other institution had influenced the ECP to adopt its current stance.
Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned until 12:00 pm on Wednesday.
